The reason I raised this issue in the first place was because there seemed to be conflict of attributions on the net and I wanted to be sure my identification was correct.
Having purchased the Truitt’s book after I started this thread, I’ve persisted with a feeling of not being sure of where my vase comes from because whilst the décor is in there, the shape is not and also because of a description of Loetz Marmorierte Glas in the Truitt’s book that says ‘’…The early examples were colored glass over clear and used no uranium in the formula. By 1890 the glass had a pink or white lining and the white striping of the glass contained uranium salts.’ My vase fits in that it has the white lining, however the stripes do not contain uranium salts.
With regards your comments above :
I agree that Harrach were a prolific producer of glass and probably had thousands of moulds therefore it's not unusual that I can't find a shape match.
I don't know how it can be proved that Loetz never marked in this way.
I don't know how it can be proved that a decorating house other than Harrach never marked in this way either. See my comment earlier in this thread quoted below
'And I now don't think the enamel mark on the base ties it particularly to Harrach, because I have seen a piece enamelled with Moser on the base that is in similar style lettering (perhaps this was the 'in' way of the day)and similarly applied pale enamel (as far as I can tell from photos of course). Therefore this could well be an enamellers mark rather than specifically a Harrach mark I think
I'm not trying to be difficult but I have not seen any referenced evidence regarding how the market worked regarding orders and who did or did not make the moulds for various orders.
I have read Craig's comments in this thread (see link)and agree with his comments and especially those regarding identification and the importance of shape and decor.http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/77917-shapes-and-decors-and-all-those-glass-ho?in=442
Basically I don't feel that just having an enamelled letter and number mark is sufficient to categorise my vase. It’s not a signature that reads ‘Loetz’ or ‘Harrach’ and it’s not a Harrach propeller mark and nor is there any evidence at all that there was one there, even on close examination under a loupe and strong lighting for a sheeny remaining evidence of something. And I did find a signed Moser piece that marked in a similar way.
I do think the mark might be useful as a piece of supporting evidence used in combination with other categoric evidence of source of production, but at the moment I don't have that other categoric evidence - i.e. in the case of Harrach, an identified vase in this decor or in this shape , or in the case of Loetz an identified vase in this shape.
I do however have a number of identified Loetz vases in this décor in Truitt’s, but just not in my shape. I have seen plenty of vases in a similar decor and colour attributed to Loetz and identified as Loetz Marmorierte Karneol. I have also found one (and I think two but I can’t find my reference at the moment)vase identified as Loetz Marmorierte that has a small part of the enamelling that matches a small part of mine. And Mike commented earlier that with the rim finish and no pontil mark he would lean towards Loetz.
By contrast I have no confirmed identifications for Harrach producing this and have not been able to match any of the enamel work. In Truitt’s it says that they photographed pieces at Harrach that had never left the factory. There are none that are the same decor or shape as my vase or have enamelling decoration that I can match, yet there are 86 vases photographed from Harrach. However both you and Brian have a vast knowledge of Harrach and feel the mark on the base is a Harrach mark. With Loetz by comparison they have only 25 photographs and 9 of those are Marmorierte glass, 6 in red. Unfortunately, none are the same shape as mine and none have enamelling decoration that I can match.
So on balance the evidence so far leans towards either/or and for Loetz I would require a shape match for me to feel comfortable with that. And certainly the mark on the bottom gives me cause for query. And for Harrach I need a confirmed identification of this Marmoriertes colour and or a shape.
So far no one has come forward to say there are any of these in the Harrach book, but then neither has anyone confirmed the shape from the Loetz patterns although many of those have yet to be identified I understand.
I do not have sufficient resources to double check the shapes and pattern numbers of those vases identified as Loetz in the Truitt’s book but assume they are, given the assertions on this thread of the rigour of the Truitt’s book.
Neither can I check all the ones available on the net attributed to Loetz, to be sure they are all Loetz Marmoriertes matched patterns for shapes. If I could, and I found some that were definitely not Loetz then of course that would help. But so far I have no evidence from anyone else that any of those vases can be identified as not being Loetz Marmoriertes Karneol.
The ones I’ve found attributed to Harrach do not have the same décor colour.
So in summary, I’m still where I was at, at the beginning of this thread. There is not enough evidence to support one way or another.
And that is the biggest issue at stake here. If
it is finally found that my vase is Harrach then there might be a re-categorisation of glass previously identified as Loetz. So I think it is important to ensure that any identification is absolutely correct and has evidence to support it